Bicyclist injured in crash with truck in Cambridge

Bicycle and truck crash in Cambridge

Pat Miguel Tomaino photographed the remains of a crash at Mass. Ave. and Sidney Street this morning between the driver of a beer truck turning right and a woman on a bicycle. The Globe reports the woman suffered leg injuries.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

Classic right hook

By on

Failure to yield.

At least in Cambridge there is some hope of this being properly investigated.

up
Voting closed 0

Bikers should also be aware

By on

Bikers should also be aware of trucks or drivers turning left. "Share the road." If their right turn signal is flashing, couldnt a bike slow down to let car/truck turn left? This is a common accident and all people on the roads need to be aware of their surroundings.

up
Voting closed 0

Turn Signals

Around here many ignore using turn signals. Even more people use then only as they are turning leaving no time for others to react to the turn.

Turn signals should be turned on at least a block in advance.

Your advice to watch turn signals is meaningless if people don't use them correctly.

up
Voting closed 0

correct

I often see people who don't bother using them, or who only use them when they're already in the act of turning and there's a pedestrian or something "in the way" where they were about to turn.

Anyway, I hope the cyclist is okay.

up
Voting closed 0

Completely agree. As someone

By on

Completely agree. As someone who road bikes AND drives around Boston area, I always use my signal. One of my driving pet peeves as its dangerous for other drivers and bikers.

up
Voting closed 0

When I ride in the city and

By on

I see a truck a head of me stopped at a light, I will hold back and not be on its right side which is a blind spot. If I am ahead of a truck, I make sure that I have enough space between him and when he is going to turn. In other words, I stay as far away from them as I can, because they have so many blind spots, and will even wait on the sidewalk until they pass.

up
Voting closed 0

Pardon the pun, but it's always good to give

By on

large trucks a wide berth. Unfortunately, the majority of people out there- both cyclists and drivers - don't seem to understand that trucks, especially semi-trailers, have greater limitations in terms of sight lines and maneuverability than passenger cars do.

I am not a commercial driver, but over the years I've had the opportunity to ride in trucks that friends were operating. Gives one a new perspective about how difficult the job really is. IMO, such 'ride alongs' should be part of any driver's ed or bike safety course.

up
Voting closed 0

And it sure would be nice if truck drivers

By on

were also required to spend a day--an hour even--biking on any major streets in Boston. I'm not a the-driver-is-always-wrong gal but it's the people on bikes who are the most vulnerable here--a little understanding would go a long way.

up
Voting closed 0

have greater limitations in

have greater limitations in terms of sight lines and maneuverability than passenger cars do.

Which is all the more reason that they should be size and time restricted on certain roads due to these limitations.

up
Voting closed 0

So amazingly stupid

By on

By that incredibly warped logic all drivers should be required to ride a bike and or walk their travel routes for a day before being granted permission to drive there.

up
Voting closed 0

MGL c90s14: right-hooks are

By on

MGL c90s14: right-hooks are illegal and the driver is at fault for failure to yield.

(that said, "passing side/suicide" is true, and i do not pass trucks or especially buses on the right, ever, and expect them to try to kill me at intersections).

up
Voting closed 0

It's only illegal if the

By on

It's only illegal if the truck was passing the bicycle. If the bicycle was overtaking the truck, then it's not the driver's fault.

up
Voting closed 0

FALSE! (probably)

By on

If the bicycle was overtaking the truck, then it's not the driver's fault.

There is a bike lane inbound on Mass Ave at that location. If the bicyclist was going straight along Mass Ave in the bike lane and the truck (to the cyclists left) right hooked the cyclist, the truck driver is absolutely at fault. It would be no different if the truck driver was making a right from the left lane on a road with two lanes in that direction.

Pro tip: if you're driving and getting ready to make a right turn... and on your right is a bike lane... move a few feet to the right so that your right tires are in the bike lane. This is, technically speaking, the correct way to make a right hand turn on a road with a bike lane, because you should be making a right from the right hand lane. Of course, only do this merge once you've made sure it's clear, and use your turn signal. By doing it this way, the cyclist behind you both (a) sees you're going to make a right, and (b) is forced to stay behind you, thereby preventing the right hook.

up
Voting closed 0

Yip

By on

Which is why it's almost certainly the truck driver's fault, by definition.

up
Voting closed 0

Nope

By on

It's a (sadly far-too) common type of crash or collision, but certainly not accidents, as the root cause is the drivers' failure to yield.
#crashnotaccident

up
Voting closed 0

Aware of what?

By on

That an overtaking truck driver will come from behind and run them down because looking for a cyclist in a cycling lane and not running them over is just tooooo harrrrrd.

Good heavens! That might mean NOT TALKING ON A CEL PHONE WHILE DRIVING A HUGE VEHICLE IN A TIGHT SPACE.

Nope. Cyclists just have to have precognition for idiots in trucks failing to drive.

up
Voting closed 0

Ch 90 S 14

By on

I am not convinced that the truck overtook and passed the cyclist while proceeding in the same direction. I suspect that the injured party overtook and almost passed the big rig while proceeding in the same direction, and if that is so, then the cyclist is at fault.

up
Voting closed 0

Nope

By on

If you turned right from a left travel lane and hit another vehicle travelling in the right lane, you would be at fault.

If you were in a city where there was a bus only lane to the right of your lane, and you turned without regard for the oncoming bus, and a collision ensued, you would also be at fault and your insurance would have to pay to fix the bus and any injuries caused by your attempt to turn right across the path of the bus.

Cycle lanes are travel lanes restricted to cyclists. You yield to the cyclists in them when crossing them. Period.

up
Voting closed 0

Keep reading

By on

When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway.

If the truck didn't have a tire in the bike lane, it wasn't turning right from the lane nearest the right-hand side of the roadway. That puts the driver at fault, not the cyclist (all other factors unknown, and yes, those other factors might change the final decision of fault/no-fault).

up
Voting closed 0

lol swirly

lets be honest that guy constructed his post around its ability to contain the word axiomatic

up
Voting closed 0

??

By on

Good heavens! That might mean NOT TALKING ON A CEL PHONE WHILE DRIVING A HUGE VEHICLE IN A TIGHT SPACE.

I didn't see that in the article linked. How do you know the driver was on a cell phone at the time?

up
Voting closed 0

Think again. There is nothing

By on

Think again. There is nothing 'classic' about it. Cambridge investigate something like this properly? Ha! Don't hold your breath. Citations please.

up
Voting closed 0

The Cambridge police did find

By on

The Cambridge police did find the piece of human garbage pick up truck driver who purposely hit a cyclist last year. And they found the driver who hit and ran after hitting a cyclist a couple months ago. Turned out it was a Cambridge cop who cowardly sped away, so that makes the department look pretty bad. Of course they will face little or no jail time and won't have their licenses terminated because its OK to attack someone with a deadly weapon in America as long as its a car.

up
Voting closed 0

I got there before they pulled her out from under truck

By on

There was a large number of police and other first responders. It was also right in front of the fire station.

The young woman who was injured seemed calm, when I could see her, as they were moving her out from under the truck.

There was at least one credible bystander witness, who a CPD officer was interviewing diligently.

CPD and some plainclothes official-looking people seemed to be taking it seriously, and there was no hurry to move the truck or the bike, which looked stuck under the front axle of the truck.

Thankfully, though there were concerned-looking people standing by, there were no cameraphone video gawking. And I did not see a single person photographing as the girl was being extracted (it's dramatic, but there is a balance between news and respect for privacy/dignity in this tragic moment).

up
Voting closed 0

Hope the cyclist recovers

By on

Hope the cyclist recovers quickly. Seems like there is never a follow-up that is made public which describes both the driver's and the cyclist's description of the crash. Was the truck driver distracted, is he claiming a blind spot? Was the cyclist caught off guard, did she think the truck driver was being aggressive? Not taking sides here. Just sick of the media never following up with these awful crashes.
Thank goodness the cyclist wasn't killed. Disturbing photograph... glad you published it. I see drivers texting while driving all of the time in Boston and Cambridge... on Storrow, the rotary near Fresh Pond before you get to Alewife, blowing through stop signs in high-traffic pedestrian areas like Newbury St. It really is infuriating. It seems like there is no enforcement for distracted driving and drivers who think they're above the law. Yet all we here from local officials is talk of more useless signage. Pathetic.

up
Voting closed 0

Followup

By on

This. There never seems to be a followup on these collisions. As a cyclist, I want to know if there's anything I can learn from this to keep myself safe. And if there's negligence or worse by the truck driver, I'd like to see justice pursued.

up
Voting closed 0

Tomorrow

By on

Try 6pm!

up
Voting closed 0

4:05

Uhub Bike Story - Always bet the under on time.

Bonus is cycle tracks are in the first 28 comments.

up
Voting closed 0

It won't have time to reach

By on

It won't have time to reach 100 comments because its a matter of minutes until another story about another horrible and dangerous driver is posted. Oh look, a driver just crashed onto the T tracks near Comm Ave. Right on queue!

up
Voting closed 0

#crashnotaccident

lol. it isnt just enough to crusade against vehicles, but now the words used to describe ~*happenings*~ with them are on the agenda

up
Voting closed 7

yeah

and in the vernacular, 'car accident' has long since meant the same thing.

perhaps instead of picking nits over literal meanings of words, addressing things like lack of enforcement of existing laws, the top-down lack of caring over pedestrian/bicyclist death, ineffective driver/cyclist and yes, pedestrian training, general lack of respect for any and all other people on the roads no matter how they commute- MIGHT be a short list on a better place to start.

but hey, what the fuck do i know. im not an english major, i clearly am not equipped to have an opinion on this.

so i guess you're right. it makes a lot of sense to harp on the perceived notion that the nomenclature is responsible for the culture surrounding the issue. get rid of that word and we'll solve all the problems.

up
Voting closed 0

perhaps instead of picking

By on

perhaps instead of picking nits over literal meanings of words

They're not even doing that. The literal meaning of "accident" is unintentional. When someone says "it was an accident", they don't mean that they're not at fault; they mean that they didn't intend for the negative result. If you say it's not an accident, you're saying it was intentional.

up
Voting closed 0

It's the implication

By on

Accident implies a "whoopsies" that is accepted and can be brushed off as "just an accident", whereas a crash or collision has a cause and potentially contributing factors that can and should be studied to prevent it from happening again. I see a difference, so do BPD, CPD, MSP, AP, BBC etc to name a very select few.

up
Voting closed 0

The people who say "whoopsie,

By on

The people who say "whoopsie, it was just an accident" tend to be small children. The typical adult response is generally something like "How many times have I told you not to run around indoors" or "Why did you answer 'no' when I asked if you had to go to the bathroom five minutes ago". Or in other words, "I understand that you did not intentionally break the vase or wet your pants. But you still are responsible because you were careless".

And as for your appeal to authority, how about http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident - excerpting: "1a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. ... 2a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance".

If the word "accident" doesn't imply any responsibility, how come no one ever says something like "Bob went golfing in good weather, but was accidentally struck by lightning". Or "Jane was accidentally injured when the tornado hit her house"?

up
Voting closed 0

Motor vehicles...

By on

...still UNDEFEATED vs. bikes.
Regardless of whose fault it is it is BIKERS that need to be more careful, because they lose EVERY TIME.
Please folks, do not take this as me putting fault on the biker in this situation, or any for that matter. Just pointing out the fact that they are always on the losing end of this battle. Regulating/fining/imprisoning drivers will not change that fact.

up
Voting closed 0

^ Bikers

By on

ride motorcycles.

up
Voting closed 0

As C3PO says

By on

Might I suggest a new strategy? Let the wookie win.

Remember folks, right of way is something you give, and not something you can take.

up
Voting closed 0

Question on "Yield to people behind you when turning right"

By on

MGL Chapter 90 Section 14 states, in part, that "no person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or drivewayā€¯ unless it is safe to do so

Link: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Sect...

I understand this is the law (though I just learned about it in the past year or two) but I will say that as a driver who learned to drive 25 years ago, I don't remember being taught this. I've had some close calls with cyclists when I was paused at an intersection, blinker on, waiting for cars and pedestrians to be clear so I could turn right. In a high pedestrian area, I was very focused on them. As I started to turn right, a cyclist came up behind me and we had a bit of a close call. To be picky, I don't know if I ever "overtook" the cyclist, or if I did, it was a few blocks prior, since I'd been waiting to turn for quite a while.

To put it another way, for 25 years, I expected people to pass me on the left, not the right.

Now, as a driver, I have added looking behind me to my visual scans, much like I've recently added a look in the mirror to avoid dooring anyone.

But it's very easy to miss a speedy cyclist passing on the right in a busy area. When I ride a bike, I sure don't bank on drivers seeing me.

up
Voting closed 0

think of it this way

By on

You are taking a right turn from the left lane.

Do that and hit a driver and passengers in another car, and your insurance will hold you at fault. it doesn't matter how fast the other driver was driving or if you didn't see them. It would be entirely your fault.

Why is running over a human on a bicycle proceeding in their own travel lane any different?

up
Voting closed 0

Because that travel lane doesn't belong there

By on

Your question makes about as much sense as asking who would be at fault if you collided with a vehicle going straight while making a left turn from the left turn lane which the city oh-so-wisely placed on the right side of the road.

up
Voting closed 0

Don't Drive Down Washington St.

There is a large Bus ONLY lane on the right.

Actually, do drive down it. Then bang a right, get hit by a bus, and explain to everyone and their insurance company how those lanes don't belong there, how you're not at fault, and how the bus driver was required to yield, etc.

Yeah.

It doesn't matter what vehicle the lane is restricted to or what vehicle is oncoming. You have to yield when crossing that travel lane on your right - not the other way around. That is the law.

up
Voting closed 0

The bus should have its own light

By on

Just like the trolleys have their own light. Period.

Requiring drivers to pay attention equally in two opposite directions instead of having the majority of their attention on their intended direction of travel via faulty road design is stupid. Period.

Rationalizing such bullshit when called out on it is childish and implying someone should get hit by a bus is just plain fucked up. Get back on your meds before you hurt yourself.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually

By on

Washington St bus lane has signs that say 'For busses only unless turning right'.

Source: drive it everyday.

up
Voting closed 4